The company started recognizing two champions following Survivor Series: The WWF champion and the "world" champion. There were two main titles of equal value sanctioned by ONE and ONLY ONE organization. From that point on, WCW was dead. It no longer applies to this picture, so just forget about it.

When Jericho unified the titles, he became the UNDISPUTED champion of the World Wrestling Federation. He became THE champion of ONE company. There was no need for them to recognize two different titles of equal value at that point anymore because it didn't make SENSE for them to. Jericho was called the "Undisputed" champion because he was THE champion. Sure, he continued to hold both belts, but that means absolutely nothing
because belts are not titles. The championship he held was the WWF title, even though it was called the "Undisputed" WWF title. When two titles are "unified", the general drill is that one title lives on while the other is retired. That's what happend with the IC title and U.S. title, the IC title and Euro title, IC title and Hardcore title, the WWF and WCW tag titles, and that's the same thing that happend here. Jericho, the world champ, beat Austin, the WWF champ, to become the ONLY champion (under the WWF name) recognized by the company.

Secondly, take a look at the verbage that was used after Triple H was awarded the World heavyweight title by Bischoff. It contained the terms "revived", "resurrected", and "brought back". Those are the SAME words that were used with regard to the U.S. title. If the World title had continued on as part of the "Undisputed" title all that time, then there would be no NEED for them to use those words. Why not? Because it never would've ceased to exist in the first place. The use of those terms clearly implies that the title had been gone and inactive.

And thirdly, like I said, Bischoff DID NOT SAY that he was stripping Lesnar of ANY championship. He merely disputed the claim that he was the "Undisputed" champion because since he was now the exclusive property of SmackDown!, he couldn't defend the title for RAW anymore. Once he said that, the following Thursday on SmackDown!, Lesnar only began being referred to as the WWE champion as opposed to the "Undisputed" WWE champion. Why? Because since RAW now officially recognized their own champion independant of the WWE champion, Lesnar could not be considered the ONLY champion in the company any longer. So when the World title was "brought back" and awarded to Triple H courtesy of Bischoff, the "Undisputed" designation was dropped from the WWE title. But make no mistake about it, the WWF/E title and the "Undisputed" WWF/E title were and are the exact same championship.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree here, as the use of the term "Undisputed" and the fact that Jericho and then Triple H carried around both belts for many months indicates to me that WWE intended for us as fans to realize that the "Undisputed Championship" was formed by the unification of the two world titles.

I guess what I'm saying is that it wasn't really about when they started calling it the "Undisputed Championship," so much so as when they stopped calling it such. It was after Lesnar was stripped of recognition by Raw and Triple H was awarded, not just recognition, but the actual World Heavyweight Championship, which we agree is the continuation of the WCW title, largely because they said it is. He even, during the original awarding ceremony, Bischoff referred to Triple H as the last man to hold the belt, thereby acknowledging that the title had been unified with the WWE title. The fact that Smackdown! stopped refering to it as the "Undisputed" title and just thereafter called it the WWE Championship feels to me like an admission that the title that Lesnar carried had lost a claim to something, that being the lineage of the World Heavyweight Championship. Because, to me that's such a big part of what made the "Undisputed Championship" so special. That it wasn't just a continuation of the old WWF title, but also a continuation of the old WCW title, too.

However, I don't belive that WWE planned on making a big deal about that forever. When Triple H recieved the new belt, I believe, it was the first step towards phasing out the references to the fact that the title held both lineages, and that eventually they would have dropped the word "undisputed" altogether, returning to calling it the WWE Championship, and thereby disacknowledging the fact that it really was both titles, because it would no longer be relevent. However, as WWE does tend to book in a short-term fashion, they eventually changed their minds, and decided to have the two titles become seperate again.

It really was a last-minute decision, too, as reports I've heard state that after Lesnar's defection, the IC title would have become considered the top title on Raw. (Remember the big deal made about the match between RVD and Benoit to determine which show would get the IC title.) Yet someone realized that having everybody fighting over a title that was always number 2 would not elevate the title to a suitable position, but make the show it appeared on seem secondary and lesser compared to the show that the WWE title appeared on. So, they needed two world titles. Fortunately they had another one hidden in the one they already had. The real issue surrounding the World Heavyweight Championship, and more importantly, its belt, which in this case _is_ actually meaningful, is that, had they known they would eventually split the titles again, they probably never would have introduced the new belt and stopped using the good old Big Gold Belt.

But we may just be splitting hairs in all this. I think that the important thing here is that we agree that the World Heavyweight Championship on Raw is indeed the same as the old WCW title and that its current era began when Eric Bischoff awarded it to Triple H on the 2 Sept. 2002 episode of Raw. Whether or not the title was just stripped from Lesnar or had to be unretired and dusted of from the vaults, like the belt that represents it, is far less important.

I know the belts are meaningless,so does he, so dan please don't remind us again that they are. That being said why did Jericho hold on to both of them and then even triple h had it for two weeks or a week. No other company had a Unified world title, so why would the company want to forget that their world title was Undisputed and had TWO count ‘em two lineages to trace back.

Also Dan…Confidential is not storyline…storylines are not MADE OR CREATED ON CONFIDENTAIL. Just RAW and Smackdown. Now on RAW Bischoff NEVER EVER said anything about terms "revived", "resurrected", and "brought back".

That was Confidential (non storyline driven show) Since wrestling is all story line and what we see on Monday/ Thursday nights is our only evidence, then we must stick to the term “dispute” b/c that is what Easy E used.

Hisa...what do you think?? IM torn--i changed my listings but should i chnage them back..i think we all need to be willing to chnage our stances, and be openminded...i can't wait to hear what you guys think.

[QUOTE=joeyi]Now I am Torn.
Oknazevad made all the points that I wanted to make.

I know the belts are meaningless,so does he, so dan please don't remind us again that they are. That being said why did Jericho hold on to both of them and then even triple h had it for two weeks or a week. No other company had a Unified world title, so why would the company want to forget that their world title was Undisputed and had TWO count ‘em two lineages to trace back..[/QUOTE]

I personally think it's because it just looked cool. Jericho, for my money, was the best Undisputed Champion simply for the way he walked around with those two belts. You could look at it as "our title is so big we need two belts to represent it" or "this is a monument to a company we buried." Personally I think a lot of it was Jericho saying, "I beat The Rock for THIS and I beat Steve Austin for THIS, and I did it in one night!"

Not too many people can say they beat both Steve Austin and The Rock in their careers, let alone in one night, let alone for seperate World Championships. Jercho wanted to rub that in our faces every chance he got.

[QUOTE=joeyi]Also Dan…Confidential is not storyline…storylines are not MADE OR CREATED ON CONFIDENTAIL. Just RAW and Smackdown. Now on RAW Bischoff NEVER EVER said anything about terms "revived", "resurrected", and "brought back"..[/QUOTE]

Bischoff said, "I am bringing back" on Raw. The point in mentioning confidential was that they traced the lineage of the World Heavyweight Title. It wasn't a story line, it was news.

Bisch never said i am bringing back....Reporter: Fred CookLOOK.....
The Raw music video plays, the pyros explode, and we are LIVE from Milwaukee , Wisconsin . Tonight, Rob Van Dam will defend the IC Title against Chris Jericho, and Shawn Michaels will give his first interview since SummerSlam! But first...

Raw GM Eric Bischoff comes to his ring carrying a briefcase and a smile. Brock Lesnar calls himself the Undisputed Heavyweight Champion of the world, but ever since his competitor made him exclusive to SmackDown, he has to dispute that claim. These fans deserve their own World Champion exclusive to Raw, the #1 brand in the history of sports-entertainment. Stephanie can call Undertaker the #1 Contender if she wants, and he can fight Brock Lesnar at Unforgiven. That’s fine. But we know who the real #1 Contender is, don’t we? The man who showed Undertaker that it’s better to be a big fish in a small pond on SmackDown than to swim with the sharks here on Raw. Here is your #1 Contender, Triple H!

The Game comes to the ring and says that Bischoff forget to say why Undertaker and Brock Lesnar had to leave the sharks. It’s all because of Triple H. Brock Lesnar knew he couldn’t hang in the ring with The Game. Hell, Lesnar shouldn’t even be able to say Triple H’s name. So when Triple H became the #1 Contender, Lesnar put his tail between his legs and ran. It turns out the Next Big Thing has no balls.

Bischoff says that’s what he loves about Triple H: he tells it like it is. If Bischoff could have signed Triple H way back when, the outcome of the Monday Night Wars would have been different. His accolades are tremendous, and they’re about to get even bigger tonight. Bischoff opens his briefcase and takes out the old WCW Heavyweight Title and reminds us that Triple H was the last man to wear that Title belt. And now, Triple H is once again the Heavyweight Champion of the World! Triple H accepts the belt and celebrates. He says that Bischoff is a good judge of talent, and definately a better judge than his ex-wife.

There is NO mention of bringin back...and ive yet to find another account where it was mentioned...

for all intensive purposes, the title was disputed...not brought back...it can't be said that it was brought back....they only said taht on confidential...NOT on RAW...evidence is above

i disregaurd ALL COMAPRISONS made to other titles liek the US and Tag, b/c were are talking about the world title....the name of the TITLE was changed to Undisputed Champion instead of just World Champion....and remained intact.

Unlike other unification matchups where they refered to thechampon as "an" undisputed champ for just one night and the title (ie.IC/US) is later retired.

There was no retiring here, b/c the word Undisputed was constintly mentioned. yet, when the Us/IC and the tag team title were unified, they were just refered to as ic and tag champs, NOT undisputed.

The constant use of the word UNDISPUTED has got to mean that the wwe had a title championship that was bigger than justa world title, b/c they now unified two world championship linegaes of the 90's into one championship, which held respect to the history of each title (world/wwe) as if it were its own.

I think joeyi makes a very valid comparison here, namely the difference between the Undisputed Championship, and the U.S./IC title situation. the fact of the matter is after winning the IC title at Survivor Series, Edge could claim both titles, but by the time the night was over, only one title would survive, they just didn't know which one yet (from a storyline point of view.) The next night on Raw was the only time we saw Edge with both belts. As soon as that week's Smackdown! the U.S. title was retired, belt and title both. Same with the Dudley's and the tag titles. Only the WWF/E belts were in use by the end of the week. Contrast that with what happened when the respective world titles were unified a month later. Jericho carried both belts around for three or so months before dropping the title(s) to Triple H. And then HHH did the same for the next couple of weeks. That's a major contrast to the U.S. title, which no one calls anything but retired.

Talison wrote: You could look at it as "our title is so big we need two belts to represent it" or "this is a monument to a company we buried."

Those are both very cool ways to say it, but either way, its an acknowledgement that it really was more than just one title. The first way begs the question "Why is it so big?" (Insert dirty joke here) The answer to which is that it actually is a combination of two titles. And the second is an outright reference to the legacy of WCW. _That's_ what I'm getting at. During the Undisputed Championship period, or at least the early part where both belts were used, WWE outright recognised that the title was in fact both of the old titles continued, not just the WWF/E title.

[QUOTE=oknazevad]Talison wrote: You could look at it as "our title is so big we need two belts to represent it" or "this is a monument to a company we buried."

Those are both very cool ways to say it, but either way, its an acknowledgement that it really was more than just one title. The first way begs the question "Why is it so big?" (Insert dirty joke here) The answer to which is that it actually is a combination of two titles. And the second is an outright reference to the legacy of WCW. _That's_ what I'm getting at. During the Undisputed Championship period, or at least the early part where both belts were used, WWE outright recognised that the title was in fact both of the old titles continued, not just the WWF/E title.[/QUOTE]

No, that's not what I meant at all. The Title was so big becaise it was the only remaining World Title being recognized by most people. It was the Undisputed Championship because it was the only Championship.

The so-called "Undisputed" title was ONE championship recognized by ONE company. That title was the WWF championship, and that company was the World Wrestling Federation.

It's not normal practice for ONE company to recognize TWO different championships of EQUAL value unless there's a good, or in some cases, a just plain stupid reason for it. The reason they initially sanctioned the "world" title was because it was excess baggage left over from WCW. And that's ALL it was. They could've simply dropped it the night after Survivor Series if they wanted to, but they didn't. Why not? Because it would be a much better payoff for them to give the fans a match they'd been longing to see for quite some time and have it "unified" with the REAL WWF title itself to crown an Undisputed champion. Not just an Undisputed champion of the WWF, but an Undisputed champion of the business in general.

After Jericho unified the titles, the WWF had ONE and ONLY one champion, and so did the business itself. From that point on, THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR THE WWF TO RECOGNIZE TWO COMPETELY DIFFERENT TITLES of EQUAL VALUE ANYMORE. Upon the unification, Jericho became ONE champion recognized by ONE SINGLE company and the title he held was the WWF title. The excess baggage known as the "world" title was now officially considered GONE because it no longer served a purpose. One champion beat the other champion, and he was now THE World Wrestling Federation champion and THE champion PERIOD.

The reason Jericho and later Triple H walked around with both belts was to SHOW OFF the fact that the titles had been unified and that they were THE champion. As somebody else said, it just plain looked cool. Has NOTHING to do with them holding two separate titles at the same time because they didn't. The Undisputed champion was the World Wrestling Federation/Entertainment champion, and that was it. No other organizations were involved.

Now comes the brand extension. The "Undisputed" WWE champion (but still just the WWE champion nevertheless) defends the title for both shows. Eventually, the champion, Brock Lesnar, signs exclusively with SmackDown!, meaning he can no longer defend the title for RAW.

This leads to Eric Bischoff announcing that RAW no longer considers him the "Undisputed" champion because he can no longer work for them, and subsequently awards Triple H recognition as "World heavyweight champion". I don't know how many times I can point out that Bischoff did not strip ANYTHING from Lesnar other than the DESIGNATION of "Undisputed" champion. They never said ONCE that they were stripping the "World championship portion" of the Undisputed title from Lesnar. In fact, the "World title", in the form of an entity independant from the WWF title, was never mentioned EVER AGAIN after the unification initially took place. Why? Because it was considered GONE. The name was only brought BACK after Bischoff awarded recognition to Triple H. And again, why? Because the brand extension and the fact that the champion was now working exclusively for one show gave WWE a SUFFICIENT REASON to start recognizing two different titles of equal value again. Prior to that, they had no REASON WHATSOEVER for doing so.

And they DID say that the title was being resurrected, brought back, revived, or whatever term you wanna use. They're all interchangeable. Doesn't matter WHAT show it was said on, or WHEN it was said. Bottom line is it WAS SAID. If the title had "offically" been part of the Undisputed title as most of you say and think it was, then why didn't they just come right out and say that Lesnar had been stripped of the World championship? If the title had TRULY been part of the Undisputed championship, then why use verbage expressing that it was essentially dead for X amount of time and was now making a comeback?

In the longrun, the bottom line is the "World" title is a piece of WWE intellectual property and they can make up whatever history they want for it. If they wanna say that it and the WWF/E were two separate titles that composed the "Undisputed" title and were "split" when Bischoff "disputed" the claim, then they can. Or if they wanna say it was only recently brought back and the Undisputed title only consisted of the WWF/E title, then they can. However, all I'm saying is that the use of verbage they used when the title (or at least the name) appeared on the scene again points as evidence for the latter.

But in addition to that, you have to think about it in terms of common sense. How is an "Undisputed" title that is sanctioned by ONE and ONLY ONE company going to consist of two separate championships? If one company has two titles that are considered to be of equal value (for whatever stange reason) wouldn't the purpose of a "unification" match be to ELIMINATE that and crown ONE Undisputed champion holding ONE and ONLY one title? If the titles were unified while WCW still existed, and had continued to exist, then the Undisputed champion WOULD be holding two separate titles: the WWF title and the WCW title. Thus, either of the two titles could be stripped by it's respective sanctioning body. But that wasn't the case. Both the WWF title and the "world" title were sanctioned by the WWF and the WWF ALONE, and were unified under the name of the "WWF title". It was only called the "Undisputed" title because A) the company now only had ONE champion, referred to as the WWF champion and B) that champion ALSO laid claim to being recognized as the ONLY legitimate champion in the business itself.

[QUOTE=Talison]Dan, I agree with you. And I didnt fully when this started.

However, to make your point more clear can you use the All Japan Triple Crown as a comparrison, or does that mess things up.

I know the Triple Crown is made up of three titles. Is it considered a wholely new title, the continuation of one of the three titles, or what?

If this comparison won't work or doesn't apply like I was thinking it would, just forget I asked.[/QUOTE]

I dunno. I guess it all depends upon what All Japan says it is. Do they say that all three titles were officially unified to form ONE title (meaning that all three physical belts are now merely used to represent that one title) or do they consider it to be composed of three separate titles that are all just defended in unison?

[QUOTE=Dan Poutsma]I dunno. I guess it all depends upon what All Japan says it is. Do they say that all three titles were officially unified to form ONE title (meaning that all three physical belts are now merely used to represent that one title) or do they consider it to be composed of three separate titles that are all just defended in unison?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, bad comparison. My bad.

Actually any comparison wouldn't hold up because it all depends on how the company words it on any given title. So all we can go by is what they said in this title situation.

Actually any comparison wouldn't hold up because it all depends on how the company words it on any given title. So all we can go by is what they said in this title situation.[/QUOTE]

Which is pretty much exactly my main argument as it pertains to the "Undisputed" title.

If you look at the language they used after the World heavyweight title was awarded to Triple H, it clearly implies that the Undisputed title was simply the WWF/E title and was NOT composed of BOTH titles. If it was, they wouldn't use terms like "resurrected", "revived", and "brought back". By using such verbage, they're indicating that the title was gone/abandoned/inactive/whatever for a certain period of time. If Lesnar REALLY held two titles, why didn't Bischoff just come out and say "As far as RAW is concerned, Brock Lesnar is no longer the "Undisputed" champion because I'm officially stripping him of one half of the two titles that compose that championship, the World heavyweight title, and awarding it to Triple H on the grounds that"....such and such?

Dan... Your Wrong Flat out wrong...no way around it...i Feel this is a case in court and we are laywers trying to convince each other nbut the BS you keep saying is very unconvincing....

Lemme get this straight...your gonna write on this message board that Confidenial and RAW both ahve storyline equvilence.

Our evidence is Monday night RAW....the terminology use on that show by Eric Bisch is the most important thing. Not what Mean Gene has scrippted...b/c forgive me if i am wrong Confidnetil DID A piece on the belt itself not teh title b/c hey we ALL KNOW THAT THE WCW WORLD TITLE AND THE WORLD TITLE (WWE OWNED) ARE NOT THE NWA WORLD TITLE. But on confidential they traced the history to it. So even though they never said it was just a belt linegae they did teh piece on we MUST assume thats what they meant b/c the tRUTH IS DAN/Talison that teh NWA title is not the WCW/world title.

That being said, The Show confidential...cannot be used as context for the reasons that it is not storyline driven to the where it creates new stories and it basiclaly misrepreasented the truth o the title saying it was also the NWA title.

Basically, i just said that those words above to piont out....

Dan You said: If it was, they wouldn't use terms like "resurrected", "revived", and "brought back".

Those words were never use on RAWthat night and unless you bring proof that theywere used on another RAW, NOt on confidentail sorry i blew that out of the perverbal wwe wate, then you can't say they used those words...and i lknow they dind't ...

Easy E disputed(Never stripped) Dan do you read teh message board..no one said stripp for liek two pages...He disputed the title.here look.

----------- Brock Lesnar calls himself the Undisputed Heavyweight Champion of the world, but ever since his competitor made him exclusive to SmackDown, he has to dispute that claim. These fans deserve their own World Champion exclusive to Raw, the #1 brand in the history of sports-entertainment. Stephanie can call Undertaker the #1 Contender if she wants, and he can fight Brock Lesnar at Unforgiven. That’s fine. But we know who the real #1 Contender is, don’t we? The man who showed Undertaker that it’s better to be a big fish in a small pond on SmackDown than to swim with the sharks here on Raw. Here is your #1 Contender, Triple H!----------Bischoff says that’s what he loves about Triple H: he tells it like it is. If Bischoff could have signed Triple H way back when, the outcome of the Monday Night Wars would have been different. His accolades are tremendous, and they’re about to get even bigger tonight. Bischoff opens his briefcase and takes out the old WCW Heavyweight Title and reminds us that Triple H was the last man to wear that Title belt. And now, Triple H is once again the Heavyweight Champion of the World

i search for evidence..instead of putting words in others mouths like you are doing..u had me convinced but not anymore...im am having fun with this....and i might vene still be wrong, i don't consdier myslef not being able to see teh "other side" cuz is aw it or a second, then realized it was nothing but words ....NO evidence.

Confidential.....hahahahaha

The world title and the wwe title=undisputed title
do u even have vengeance on Tape....i doo..ive watched it many times...the man even was austinjericho for the undisputed title...not for the wwe or the world...jericho beat the wwe champion, therefore won the Undisputed title, he never won the wwe.

Danny said this: After Jericho unified the titles, the WWF had ONE and ONLY one champion, and so did the business itself. From that point on, THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR THE WWF TO RECOGNIZE TWO COMPETELY DIFFERENT TITLES of EQUAL VALUE ANYMORE

Your right the didn't need to recognise two champs, thats why they unified them, created an undisputed title with each title having the same claim to the other...thus when added both titles togther...you have a larger than life title. an undisputed title.

whne you say the world title was retired...that simply says that the Undisputed title no longer needs the world title... when it does...otherwise its not undisputed....and does not have the same importance.

The Undisputed Champ....is created of two titles, each with their own lineage...The U.C. should be regocnized in each other lineages...

Hisa, doesn't have it listing as the way i see it, but i would liek a reason why?
JOEY I.

[QUOTE=joeyi]Lemme get this straight...your gonna write on this message board that Confidenial and RAW both ahve storyline equvilence.[/QUOTE]

I don't know what your problem is with Confidential but quite simply they did a news report on what had happened on Raw and the ignificance of the Title. I have it on tape, I've watchd it several times. It doesn't have anything to do with storylines. They were saying the Title awarded to Triple H on Raw was this belt.

[QUOTE=joeyi]Our evidence is Monday night RAW....the terminology use on that show by Eric Bisch is the most important thing. Not what Mean Gene has scrippted...b/c forgive me if i am wrong Confidnetil DID A piece on the belt itself not teh title b/c hey we ALL KNOW THAT THE WCW WORLD TITLE AND THE WORLD TITLE (WWE OWNED) ARE NOT THE NWA WORLD TITLE. But on confidential they traced the history to it. So even though they never said it was just a belt linegae they did teh piece on we MUST assume thats what they meant b/c the tRUTH IS DAN/Talison that teh NWA title is not the WCW/world title..[/QUOTE]

I never said it was the NWA Title. Dan has been the chief person saying that it was not the NWA Title.

On Confidential they talked about the World Heavyweight Title going back to the early 20th century. They talked about the NWA Title continueing that lineage. Bischoff said that when it became obvious that the NWA could no longer compete on a national level it "morphed" into the WCW Title. This is technically true. Ric Flair's 8th NWA reign was considered by WCW to be the first WCW Title reign. Furthermore, WCW frequently made it known that they considered their belt to have the lineage of the NWA belt up until then. This may not be the case, but it is what WCW always told us. They frequently said their title traced it's heritage back to the early 20th Century before their was an NWA or WCW.

[QUOTE=joeyi]That being said, The Show confidential...cannot be used as context for the reasons that it is not storyline driven to the where it creates new stories and it basiclaly misrepreasented the truth o the title saying it was also the NWA title..[/QUOTE]

They never said that.

[QUOTE=joeyi]Dan You said: If it was, they wouldn't use terms like "resurrected", "revived", and "brought back".

Those words were never use on RAWthat night and unless you bring proof that theywere used on another RAW, NOt on confidentail sorry i blew that out of the perverbal wwe wate, then you can't say they used those words...and i lknow they dind't ..[/QUOTE]

Bischoff said, "I am bringing back.." My only proof is that I know he said it.

[QUOTE=joeyi]Easy E disputed(Never stripped) Dan do you read teh message board..no one said stripp for liek two pages...He disputed the title.here look.[/QUOTE]

Why be rude? This is all in fun.

[QUOTE=joeyi]----------- Brock Lesnar calls himself the Undisputed Heavyweight Champion of the world, but ever since his competitor made him exclusive to SmackDown, he has to dispute that claim. These fans deserve their own World Champion exclusive to Raw, the #1 brand in the history of sports-entertainment. Stephanie can call Undertaker the #1 Contender if she wants, and he can fight Brock Lesnar at Unforgiven. That’s fine. But we know who the real #1 Contender is, don’t we? The man who showed Undertaker that it’s better to be a big fish in a small pond on SmackDown than to swim with the sharks here on Raw. Here is your #1 Contender, Triple H!----------Bischoff says that’s what he loves about Triple H: he tells it like it is. If Bischoff could have signed Triple H way back when, the outcome of the Monday Night Wars would have been different. His accolades are tremendous, and they’re about to get even bigger tonight. Bischoff opens his briefcase and takes out the old WCW Heavyweight Title and reminds us that Triple H was the last man to wear that Title belt. And now, Triple H is once again the Heavyweight Champion of the World..[/QUOTE]

This is an account of the night. It is not a word for word transcript.

[QUOTE=joeyi] i search for evidence..instead of putting words in others mouths like you are doing..u had me convinced but not anymore...im am having fun with this....and i might vene still be wrong, i don't consdier myslef not being able to see teh "other side" cuz is aw it or a second, then realized it was nothing but words ....NO evidence.[/QUOTE]

Again, why be rude? I don't see it as not seeing the other side because there is no other side to see. No one is robbing you of your opinion, but Dan is stateing facts as to what happened.

[QUOTE=joeyi]The world title and the wwe title=undisputed title
do u even have vengeance on Tape....i doo..ive watched it many times...the man even was austinjericho for the undisputed title...not for the wwe or the world...jericho beat the wwe champion, therefore won the Undisputed title, he never won the wwe.[/QUOTE]

Well, go on over to the WWE website. Chris Jericho is listed as a former WCW Champion and a former WWE Champion. And if their is any question as to wether they recognized the Undisputed Title as both Titles look at their listing for The Undertaker. He was the ony man not to hold the WCW Title before the Undisputed Title nor has he held the World Heavyweight Title since. He as listed as a former WWE Champion. He is not listed as a former WCW/World Campion.